Should OS makers, like Microsoft, be legally required to provide 15 years of security updates?

  • Matriks404@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    No, OS makers should just not make their OS bloated with useless shit, stealing your data and have arbitrary system requirements. I think 15 years of OS updates is excessive unless we’re talking about servers or very specific workflows. IMO 5-10 years is enough.

    That said, for some operating systems it doesn’t even make sense to support for THAT long, because how they are designed (A lot of Linux distros for example). It turns out, if you don’t break users’ workflow, they don’t mind to upgrade.

    • some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I agree with most of that, but there are loads of embedded systems still running the equivalent of Windows XP and they’re chugging along just fine. That OS still receives updates and ending that would break a lot of backend stuff. Mostly banking.

      Boeing just started making planes which don’t rely on floppy disks for updates. That will continue on the older part of the fleet until it’s no longer feasible to procure the disks or the planes are no longer airworthy. I mean, why not? If you only need to store a few mbs for something critical, it’s not a bad choice of medium.

      If a system is secure, reliable and works for decades without complaint, there’s no need to fix that.